Cumbo, Sam Edward, WR-83,325-02

Cumbo was convicted of capital murder at a first trial; death penalty imposed and later reversed for a new trial.
In the second trial, Cumbo was again convicted of capital murder with negative findings on the two punishment issues; punishment in the primary case was ultimately life imprisonment.
Mandate issued October 15, 1991; Cumbo’s habeas petition was filed December 10, 2014, over two decades later.
State argued that Cumbo’s delay was unreasonable and prejudicial, invoking laches to bar relief.
The trial court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law denying relief, adopting the State’s analysis and denying post-conviction relief.
The court ultimately denied habeas relief on laches grounds, concluding Cumbo’s delay prejudiced the State and was not justified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does laches bar habeas relief here?	Cumbo contends delay was not unreasonable; some justification exists.	State shows unreasonable delay and prejudice to location of witnesses and evidence.	Yes; relief denied due to laches (unreasonable delay and prejudice).
Are trial errors or insufficient evidence cognizable in habeas corpus in this context?	Claims of trial error and insufficient evidence should be reviewable.	Such claims are record claims not cognizable on habeas.	No; they are record claims not cognizable on habeas and should be denied.
Did Cumbo procedurally default challenges to the indictment?	Indictment defects were not timely objected to and thus should be reviewable.	Failure to object pre-trial results in procedural default; cannot raise on habeas.	No; procedural default bars review on habeas.

Ex parte Gardner, 959 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (habeas claims not suitable for issues that could be raised on direct appeal)
Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (extent of prejudice and laches in habeas context; five-year presumptive threshold)
Ex parte Carrio, 992 S.W.2d 486 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (doctrine of laches may bar habeas relief when delay prejudices state)
Ex parte Patterson, 969 S.W.2d 16 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (indictment defects; procedural default principles)
Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (pretrial objections; related default rule)
Ex parte Clore, 690 S.W.2d 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (habeas scope and purpose as confinement-focused)
Ex parte McGowan, 645 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (record claims generally not cognizable on habeas)
Ex parte Easter, 615 S.W.2d 719 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (sufficiency of the evidence not cognizable on habeas)